Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` ______________________________________
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` ______________________________________
`
` INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC.,
`
` Petitioner,
`
` v.
`
` ETHICON LLC
`
` Patent Owner.
`
` ______________________________________
`
` Case IPR 2019-00880
`
` U.S. Patent 7,490,749 B2
` ______________________________________
`
` DEPOSITION OF BRYAN KNODEL, Ph.D.
`
` Friday, December 13, 2019
`
` Reported by:
`
` Amanda Blomstrom, CSR/CRR/RMR/CLR
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6 7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.001
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` ______________________________________
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` ______________________________________
`
` INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC.,
`
` Petitioner,
`
` v.
`
` ETHICON LLC
`
` Patent Owner.
`
` ______________________________________
`
` Case IPR 2019-00880
`
` U.S. Patent 7,490,749 B2
` ______________________________________
`
` DEPOSITION OF BRYAN KNODEL, Ph.D.
`
` Friday, December 13, 2019
`
` Reported by:
`
` Amanda Blomstrom, CSR/CRR/RMR/CLR
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6 7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.001
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 2
`
` The deposition of BRYAN KNODEL, Ph.D.,
`
` was convened on Friday, December 13, 2019,
`
` from 9:04 a.m. to 10:43 a.m., at the offices of
`
` Fish & Richardson, 1717 Main Street, Suite 5000,
`
` Dallas, Texas 75201, before Amanda Blomstrom,
`
` Registered Merit Reporter, Certified LiveNote
`
` Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter, and
`
` Certified Shorthand Reporter in and for the states
`
` of Texas, California, and Illinois.
`
`1 2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.002
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 3
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
` For Intuitive Surgical, Inc.:
`
` WILL FREEMAN, ESQUIRE
` FISH & RICHARDSON
` 1000 Maine Avenue, S.W.
` Washington, D.C. 20024
` 202.783.5070
` will.freeman@fr.com
` -and-
` KENNETH W. DARBY, ESQUIRE
` FISH & RICHARDSON
` 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 810
` Austin, Texas 78701
` 512.226.8126
` kdarby@fr.com
`
` For Ethicon LLC:
`
` CHRISTOPHER PEPE, ESQUIRE
` KATHRYN M. KANTHA, ESQUIRE
` WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES
` 2001 M Street, N.W.
` Washington, D.C. 20036
` 202.682.7153
` christopher.pepe@weil.com
` kathryn.kantha@weil.com
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.003
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 4
`
` INDEX
` PAGE
` BRYAN KNODEL, Ph.D.
` Examination by Mr. Pepe................. 5
` Examination by Mr. Freeman.............. 62
`
` EXHIBITS
`
` NO. DESCRIPTION REFERRED TO
`
` Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,490,749 6
`
` Exhibit 1003 Declaration of Bryan Knodel 6
`
` Exhibit 1004 United States Patent Application (attached)
` Publication No. US2006/0175375
`
` Exhibit 1005 United States Patent Application 38
` Publication No. US2005/0178813
`
` Exhibit 1010 U.S. Patent No. 5,941,442 37
`
` *****
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.004
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` BRYAN KNODEL, Ph.D.,
`
` having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION
`
` BY MR. PEPE:
`
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Knodel.
`
` A. Good morning.
`
` Q. Now, you understand you're here today for
`
` a deposition for an IPR for U.S. Patent 7,490,749?
`
` A. Right.
`
` Q. Okay. So I'm just going to hand you a
`
` couple of documents before we get going.
`
` The first one is your Declaration. Just
`
` flip through it; make sure everything's there.
`
` MR. FREEMAN: Chris, should we do
`
` introductions for the record?
`
` THE REPORTER: I'm sorry?
`
` MR. FREEMAN: I said, should we do
`
` introductions for the record?
`
` MR. PEPE: If you want some introductions,
`
` we can do introductions.
`
` THE REPORTER: It's not necessary.
`
` MR. PEPE: If it makes you more
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.005
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` comfortable, I'm Chris Pepe for patent owner Ethicon,
`
` and with me is Katie Kantha. We are both from the
`
` law firm Weil, Gotshal & Manges.
`
` MR. FREEMAN: And I'm Will Freeman, with
`
` Fish & Richardson, on behalf of Petitioner, and with
`
` me is Kenneth Darby of Fish & Richardson. I am in
`
` Washington, D.C., and Kenneth is in Austin, Texas.
`
` THE WITNESS: I'm Dr. Knodel.
`
` Everything looks good on this.
`
` BY MR. PEPE:
`
` Q. It's all there? All right.
`
` A. I think so.
`
` Q. And we're also going to give you a copy of
`
` what's been marked as Exhibit -- well, before I get
`
` into this.
`
` Your Declaration is marked as IS 1003.
`
` You see that? And what I've just handed you is
`
` Exhibit IS 1001, which is U.S. Patent
`
` No. 7,490,749.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. Can you take a look through the '7 -- and
`
` I will be referring to that as the '749 patent today,
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.006
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` if you're okay with that. Just flip through it; make
`
` sure it looks like it's a complete copy of the '749
`
` patent.
`
` A. Okay. It's good.
`
` Q. All right. Now, Dr. Knodel, at this
`
` point, you have submitted a number of Declarations on
`
` behalf of Intuitive Surgical in IPR proceedings,
`
` right?
`
` A. I have.
`
` Q. Do you recall how many Declarations you
`
` have submitted at this point?
`
` A. I don't recall the exact number, but
`
` eight?
`
` Q. Okay. When did you first begin consulting
`
` for Fish & Richardson with respect to these IPR
`
` proceedings?
`
` A. Gosh, how long ago was it? I don't recall
`
` the exact time frame. Probably say it might have
`
` been a year and a half ago.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. Not sure.
`
` Q. Now, do you -- can you recall how much
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.007
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` you've been compensated over that period with respect
`
` to these IPR proceedings?
`
` A. I -- I don't recall.
`
` Q. Now, aside from the legal consulting that
`
` you are currently doing for Fish & Richardson on
`
` behalf of Intuitive Surgical, are you currently doing
`
` any other consulting work for Intuitive Surgical?
`
` A. No, I am not.
`
` Q. Okay. Have you done any other consulting
`
` work for Intuitive Surgical outside of the legal
`
` context since you began consulting on these IPRs?
`
` A. No, I have not.
`
` Q. So I'd like to ask you some questions
`
` about your prior work experience and design
`
` experience.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. Now, I believe in prior proceedings,
`
` you've testified that you have experience designing
`
` surgical staplers, right?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. And you worked on the design of surgical
`
` staplers while working at Ethicon, right?
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.008
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. I did.
`
` Q. Okay. And what was the time frame in
`
` which you were designing surgical staplers for
`
` Ethicon?
`
` A. 1992 through the end of 1997.
`
` Q. Okay. All right. Can you recall, you
`
` know, what commercial products you were -- you were
`
` part of the design team for while working at Ethicon?
`
` A. The EZ 35, the EZ 45, the ETS 35, ETS 45,
`
` and I did the design, that -- that platform that did
`
` the 35 and 45 also included a 60; although, I didn't
`
` launch the 60 before I left.
`
` Q. Okay. So just to be clear. So there was
`
` an EZ 35 and an EZ 45?
`
` A. Um-hmm.
`
` Q. All right. There is an ETS 45 and an
`
` ATS 45?
`
` A. Oh, there's a -- that's a good point.
`
` There is an ETS 35, an ETS 45, an ETS 60 that was
`
` designed and an ATS 35 and 45.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. I forgot about the ATSs. Thank you.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.009
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. Okay. And so those were the only -- those
`
` were the commercial products you worked on while at
`
` Ethicon, right?
`
` A. Those are the commercial products -- well,
`
` there's the reload units as well that go with those,
`
` you know, white, blue, green cartridges, et cetera.
`
` And then, of course, I also was, being in that
`
` department, doing technical design reviews and
`
` participating on other products: clip appliers,
`
` CCube devices, you know, cut/coag, that kind of
`
` thing, but ...
`
` Q. Okay. So other surgical devices, not
`
` necessarily --
`
` A. Right.
`
` Q. -- surgical staplers?
`
` A. My -- yeah, my main area of focus at
`
` Ethicon was surgical staplers.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. But as a principal engineer in the
`
` department, I was drawn into all kinds of other,
`
` especially on the IP side. At the time that I left
`
` and for the 11 years that followed, I was the most
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.010
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` prolific inventor in the company's history.
`
` Q. Okay. Since you've left Ethicon, have you
`
` worked on the design of surgical staplers?
`
` A. I have.
`
` Q. Okay. In what context was that?
`
` A. As a consultant.
`
` Q. Okay. I mean, are there any commercial
`
` products you can tell me that you worked on the
`
` design of?
`
` A. Not that I can tell you that I have worked
`
` on the design of, no.
`
` Q. Okay. So there are some products; you
`
` can't -- you're not at liberty --
`
` A. Right.
`
` Q. -- to say what those are?
`
` Okay. So why don't we stick with the --
`
` the products you worked on at Ethicon.
`
` A. Perfect.
`
` Q. Now, with respect to the -- why don't we
`
` start with the EZ 35 and EZ 45, okay?
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. Were those a -- were those surgical
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.011
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` stapling device that both cut and stapled tissue?
`
` A. They did.
`
` Q. Was there a mechanism in them, in those
`
` devices, that transversed through the jaws to
`
` effectuate stapling and cutting?
`
` A. Yes, they -- yeah, they deployed staples,
`
` multiple rows on either side of a transecting cut
`
` line that severed the tissue.
`
` Q. Okay. And what exactly was the structure
`
` of the mechanism that would -- would do that?
`
` A. In the EZ 35, the wedge is a knife where
`
` part of the instrument, the cartridge was kind of a
`
` bare-bones cartridge, in other words, it had the
`
` body, the drivers, the staples, a pan underneath of
`
` it to keep the drivers from falling out, and a
`
` lockout.
`
` Q. Okay. Did the EZ 35 or EZ 45 include --
`
` well, let me -- let me take a step back.
`
` Do -- are you familiar with the -- the
`
` term "I-beam"?
`
` A. Yes, I am.
`
` Q. Okay. Are you familiar with the term
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.012
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` "E-beam"?
`
` A. I am.
`
` Q. Okay. Did the EZ 35 or EZ 45 have either
`
` an I-beam or an E-beam?
`
` A. They did not.
`
` Q. Okay. So once the device was fired in the
`
` EZ 35 and EZ 45, how was the sled and knife -- well,
`
` let me take a step back.
`
` After the device was fired, was the sled
`
` and knife retracted back to the proximal end of the
`
` jaws?
`
` A. So there's no sled in an EZ 35 or 45.
`
` There -- a sled is a -- is a component that has the
`
` wedge features on it that's independent, that you
`
` could push and leave, or the, in the case of -- in
`
` the case of EZ 35 or 45, the wedges are part of the
`
` device. So there -- it's not a separate component.
`
` So it's just not normally called a -- a "sled." Sled
`
` was the term used for an independent component that
`
` you just pushed, you actually never pulled back.
`
` Q. Okay. So I'll try to use your
`
` terminology.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.013
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` So the --
`
` A. Sorry.
`
` Q. -- the wedges and the knife in the EZ 35
`
` and EZ 45 --
`
` A. Yeah.
`
` Q. -- those were traversed through the
`
` jaws --
`
` A. Yes, they did.
`
` Q. -- to cut and staple?
`
` After that process was complete, were the
`
` wedge and the knife retracted?
`
` A. They were.
`
` Q. Okay. And what mechanism performed that
`
` retraction?
`
` A. A spring.
`
` Q. A spring. Okay.
`
` So and did the spring automatically
`
` perform that retraction?
`
` A. Yeah, so it was a single pump firing
`
` trigger. You pulled it to fire. When you let it go,
`
` the spring returned.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.014
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. So it was direct drive, direct linkage.
`
` Q. Okay. So the user didn't have to perform
`
` any manual actuation in that --
`
` A. No manual actuation --
`
` Q. -- device to retract --
`
` A. -- no.
`
` Q. Okay. And when was that device, the EZ 35
`
` and EZ 45, you know, first available on the market?
`
` A. Early, I'd say, '94 maybe.
`
` Q. Okay. Do you know when it went off the
`
` market?
`
` A. I think that -- well, the 45 stayed on for
`
` a really long time. The 35 overlapped a little bit
`
` to the ETS 35, but then it, then it went off. So --
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. -- I don't know the exact dates.
`
` Q. Okay. Now let's talk about the ETS 35 and
`
` 45.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. Now, did those devices have the same
`
` general structure and functionality?
`
` A. Yeah. They -- the big change at the
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.015
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` ETS -- yes, but the big change with the ETS was, we
`
` went to the trans -- that was the point at which I
`
` invented the translating anvil. That's the kidney-
`
` shaped slides that you see in the channel, and the
`
` pivot on the anvil, that it arcs forward as it
`
` closes. You know what I'm speaking of?
`
` Q. Yes, yes.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. That, that entire mechanism, was done
`
` because there was concern that U.S. Surgical was
`
` going to be able to enforce a patent on what's called
`
` a closure tube, where you just advance the closure
`
` tube and all the anvil did was pivot. And so we were
`
` requested to redesign the -- the endoscopic stapling
`
` devices to get rid of cam tube closing just in case
`
` U.S. Surgical was able to successfully argue that we
`
` had infringed them. So we moved the entire
`
` architecture to that, what was called then the
`
` "translating anvil." It -- because it moves slightly
`
` distal as it closes, translates distal, but it was a
`
` very effective way to get around the IP that U.S.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.016
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Surgical had.
`
` Q. Okay. So just to be clear.
`
` Are you -- is that explaining the -- the
`
` difference between the ETS device and the EZ device?
`
` A. Yep. That's --
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. That was one of -- that was one of the
`
` core reasons why we moved away from the EZ platform
`
` to the ETS platform, was the redesign of the closing
`
` mechanism at the distal head of the device.
`
` Q. Okay. All right. So in the ETS 35 and
`
` 45, did the device also include a wedge and knife
`
` that traversed distally through the jaws to effect
`
` stapling and cutting of tissue?
`
` A. It did.
`
` Q. Okay. After the stapling and cutting of
`
` tissue -- strike that.
`
` After the stapling and cutting of tissue,
`
` were the wedge and cutting instrument retracted?
`
` A. They were.
`
` Q. Okay. And what mechanism performed the
`
` retraction?
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.017
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. A spring.
`
` Q. Okay. So the in ETS 35 and 45, again, the
`
` user did not perform any manual actuation to retract
`
` the wedge and knife?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. Okay. Okay. And I'm, just -- just to
`
` round out on the design of the ETS device. The ETS
`
` 35 and 45 did not include an I-beam or an E-beam,
`
` correct?
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. And that's actually the primary reason why
`
` you could use a spring return, because in the case of
`
` the architecture of an EZ or an ETS, if the knife or
`
` wedge somehow became jammed and -- and locked
`
` forward, it had no impact on being able to unclamp
`
` the device; whereas, once the architecture went to
`
` the E-beams, I-beams, that was no longer true. Now
`
` it became mandatory that you retract that in all
`
` cases; regardless of the thickness of the tissue,
`
` regardless of any malfunction. Because if you didn't
`
` pull back the E-beam or the I-beam, the device was
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.018
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` locked on tissue and you would have to cut it out of
`
` the patient.
`
` So spring returns were very common before
`
` E-beams and I-beams because the risk to the patient
`
` of any malfunction was negligible. You could -- you
`
` could literally unclamp it, bring it right out of the
`
` thing, right out of the patient with no consequence
`
` whatsoever. So spring returns were very common. The
`
` only -- when we get to other return mechanisms, they
`
` arise in conjunction with E-beams and I-beams --
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` A. -- because of the risk associated with
`
` malfunctioning.
`
` Q. Well, thank you for that response. It
`
` wasn't really responsive to my question. So I'm
`
` going to move to strike that.
`
` But we'll --
`
` A. I -- okay.
`
` Q. -- continue.
`
` Okay. So after leaving Ethicon -- while
`
` you worked at Ethicon, you did not work on the design
`
` of instruments with an I-beam or an E-beam, right?
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.019
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. Well, the E -- I-beam -- so while I was at
`
` Ethicon, U.S. Surgical had come out with an I-beam;
`
` so we were looking at I-beams. We were discussing
`
` I-beams; talking about I-beams, the advantages and
`
` disadvantages; and looking at them. I did not launch
`
` a product with an E-beam or I-beam. As a matter of
`
` fact, I don't think Ethicon launched a product,
`
` another stapler after I left for about a decade. And
`
` then -- and then they came out with E-beams and
`
` I-beams.
`
` There was a lot of -- it took -- it took a
`
` while for the organization to make that shift. But
`
` it was definitely on the radar while I was there. It
`
` was just starting to -- the company was looking at
`
` how we were going to -- what we were going to do to
`
` respond to U.S. Surgical's move to go to an I-beam.
`
` Q. But you didn't work on the design of a
`
` product that Ethicon commercialized that --
`
` A. That's correct --
`
` Q. -- included an I-beam or an E-beam, right?
`
` A. -- nothing that I looked at. It was all
`
` just conceptual when I did it.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.020
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. Okay. And I'll just ask, I know -- make
`
` sure -- we didn't go over the ground rules. Maybe
`
` I'll just, I'll do a little refresher now --
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. -- just because, you know, we've done this
`
` a number of times; so I thought maybe we didn't need
`
` to do that.
`
` A. Oh.
`
` Q. You know, the court reporter is writing
`
` everything down; so it's important that we don't talk
`
` over each other. You know, that being said, do your
`
` best, until I'm finished, and then I'm going to wait
`
` until you finish, and then I will ask my next
`
` question.
`
` You know, again, we will take breaks every
`
` hour.
`
` You know, otherwise, do you feel like you
`
` need any refresher on how the process is going to
`
` work?
`
` A. I think I'm okay.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
` All right. Dr. Knodel, why don't we take
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.021
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` out your Declaration. I have a few questions for you
`
` about that.
`
` All right. And if you could turn to
`
` Paragraph 43 of your Declaration. I just want to get
`
` your -- get some clarification on a few of the
`
` statements you've made in your -- your claim
`
` construction analysis. So you can go ahead and --
`
` and review Paragraphs 43 through 45 if you want to
`
` take a minute.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. All right. All set.
`
` So, in Paragraph 44, you know, you have
`
` proposed a construction for retraction assembly, and
`
` you've stated that the -- the claimed functions of
`
` the retraction assembly are retracting and
`
` interfacing.
`
` Do you see that at the top of Paragraph
`
` 44?
`
` A. I do.
`
` Q. Okay. What exactly does "interfacing"
`
` mean in the context of being a function?
`
` A. That an interface, as a function, would be
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.022
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` two things interacting. It's -- and it's a
`
` very generic word; so I don't -- I think
`
` "interfacing" could be -- mean a lot of things. I
`
` don't know that I'm trying to define it. I'm just
`
` saying that it doesn't -- it doesn't tell me what the
`
` structure is. It's just an interface, which could
`
` mean a wide variety of things.
`
` Q. Okay. Well, that's -- what I'm trying to
`
` understand is: Are you -- you stated that this is a
`
` function. So I'm trying to understand --
`
` A. Yeah, it's some --
`
` Q. -- how you assess what --
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. Again, remember, let -- let me finish, and
`
` then -- because she might walk out before the day is
`
` over if we don't take turns.
`
` Right, so, you know, you've stated that
`
` interfacing is a function, and I'm trying to
`
` understand what are the contours of when two
`
` components interface with each other, if that is a
`
` function.
`
` A. Yeah, it's a function in that the claim
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.023
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` states that it, that the assemblies -- that the
`
` functions -- that what the assembly does is retract
`
` and interface.
`
` Q. Okay. So is -- would your opinion be that
`
` something, two components interface merely if they're
`
` coupled to each other?
`
` A. I -- I didn't formulate opinion on what
`
` possible -- what "interfacing" could possibly then
`
` mean. But it -- all I know is that, from the claim,
`
` that it says that it "interfaces."
`
` Q. Okay. Well --
`
` A. It could mean a wide variety of things.
`
` Q. -- would two components that are merely
`
` coupled to each other interface with each other?
`
` A. That is probably one sort of definition,
`
` if you will, of "interfacing."
`
` Q. Okay. So, you know, the mere fact that
`
` two components -- strike that.
`
` Okay. So really all that would need to
`
` occur is for two components to be connected to each
`
` other and that constitutes "interfacing"?
`
` MR. FREEMAN: Objection --
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.024
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` THE WITNESS: Well --
`
` MR. FREEMAN: -- misstates prior
`
` testimony.
`
` THE WITNESS: I -- I do not even think it
`
` would even be required that they connect. They --
`
` they could just touch. They could -- they could --
`
` yeah, I think "interface" is just such a broad term
`
` that I don't -- I don't think I would say that they
`
` have to connect.
`
` BY MR. PEPE:
`
` Q. Okay. So two components that touch each
`
` other, that meets the interfacing?
`
` A. I --
`
` MR. FREEMAN: Objection; misstates prior
`
` testimony.
`
` Just give me a quick second after he asks
`
` the question.
`
` THE WITNESS: As an example -- I'm not
`
` saying that that is -- would always be an interface,
`
` but that's a possible interface is that they touch.
`
` It's a possible interface that they couple. It's a
`
` possible interface that they -- that they send a
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.025
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 26
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` signal from one to another and don't touch. I mean,
`
` "interface" -- my computer is interfacing with the
`
` Internet. There's no con- -- there's no physical
`
` touching. "Interface" is a broad term, is what I'm
`
` saying. But a functional term.
`
` BY MR. PEPE:
`
` Q. All right. Can we go to, it's Paragraph
`
` 46 of your Declaration.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. All right. And so you provided a -- a
`
` construction of "firing drive" in Paragraphs 46
`
` through 48, right?
`
` A. Yes. In the -- in the absence of -- as I
`
` mentioned at the beginning of this section, when the
`
` claim terms fail to recite sufficient structure,
`
` Counsel has informed me that I need to look to the
`
` specification. And this means plus function analysis
`
` to find the function.
`
` So, yes, in -- in Paragraphs 46 through
`
` 48, I've looked at the claim words, found them to
`
` lack structure, and went ahead into the
`
` specification, and identified a structure for those.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.026
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. Okay. All right. And, again, in
`
` Paragraph 47, you've identified the functions of the
`
` firing drive are, as -- one of them as being
`
` "firing."
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A. I do see that.
`
` Q. Okay. What do you mean by "firing" there?
`
` A. When I look -- so firing, the -- the term
`
` "firing" itself is -- is not clear in the claim, if
`
` you just read the claim. I don't know what it means
`
` by "firing." In the context of the specification,
`
` "firing" seems to mean the transection of the tissue
`
` and the forming of the stapling -- staples.
`
` Q. Okay. But the drive isn't actually
`
` performing that function, right?
`
` A. The drive enables firing.
`
` Q. Okay. So it enables it, but it's not
`
` actually the structure that performs the function --
`
` A. No.
`
` Q. -- correct?
`
` A. You're right. Right.
`
` Q. Okay.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`Ethicon Exhibit 2018.027
`Intuitive v. Ethicon
`IPR2019-00880
`
`
`
`Bryan Knodel, Ph.D. - December 13, 2019
`
`Page 28
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Okay. Can you go to Paragraph 63 of your
`
` Declaration.
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. All right. And so at the top of Paragraph
`
` 63, you state "I have been informed by Counsel for
`
` Intuitive that the patent owner has alleged a
`
` surgical stapling and severing instrument including
`
` both primary retraction assembly and a manual back-up
`
` retraction assembly is within the scope of the '749
`
` Patent's claims."
`
` Do you see that?
`
` A. I do.
`
` Q. Okay. After that, you state "I have no
`
` direct knowledge of
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
